↓ Skip to main content

Structure of the gut microbiome following colonization with human feces determines colonic tumor burden

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
248 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Structure of the gut microbiome following colonization with human feces determines colonic tumor burden
Published in
Microbiome, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2049-2618-2-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nielson T Baxter, Joseph P Zackular, Grace Y Chen, Patrick D Schloss

Abstract

A growing body of evidence indicates that the gut microbiome plays a role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with CRC harbor gut microbiomes that are structurally distinct from those of healthy individuals; however, without the ability to track individuals during disease progression, it has not been possible to observe changes in the microbiome over the course of tumorigenesis. Mouse models have demonstrated that these changes can further promote colonic tumorigenesis. However, these models have relied upon mouse-adapted bacterial populations and so it remains unclear which human-adapted bacterial populations are responsible for modulating tumorigenesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
India 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 324 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 67 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 18%
Student > Master 44 13%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 47 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 99 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 39 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 57 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,540,441
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#537
of 1,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,851
of 243,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.